 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Theory of Evolution - argument for/against
 |
•
•
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 31
Posting Whiz in Training
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by GrimJack 
I do not like dictionary definitions in a discussion of science - they lack the nuance and focus needed
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by GrimJack
I tend to 'Popperian' when I discuss science
The Popperian approach to philosophy is more a statement of how Popper believes things should be done i.e. he sought to impose a particular methodology, and deemed anything outside his methodology as invalid or non-scientific.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by GrimJack
I read Principia and Principia Mathematica(I thought the second was part of a series - jeez, I kept thinking why didn't Readers Digest condense these) in my youth (I was pretty bored in high school and had already read all 3 encyclopediae in the library) and have no desire to do so again. Newton used 'axiom' and 'law' interchangeably - in other words its truth was taken for granted.
If you read any authors work, but apply different definitions than that author did, you open yourself up to misunderstand that work. But that is Popper from the top of his head down to the tips of his toenails: his core criticism of the work of other philosophers is that they do not use the methodology (definitions, starting point, approach, etc) he espouses.
In any event, we're drifting off topic with this discussion. It's past time that we let people make their arguments for or against evolution, rather than arguing the nuances of Karl Popper's dogmatic approach to philosophical thought.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,947
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 515
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by grumpier
Interestingly enough, those who point out evidence concerning evolution do not claim it proves or disproves creationism. Only creationists claim that. It is only creationists who argue that a creator would not allow evolution. Again, that belief is not testable.
There are also those who think that God created the universe and the Earth billions of years ago and set up the laws of physics and maybe even creates occasional Big Bangs. I can't see any contradiction there.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by VernonDozier
Gotta disagree with you on that one. steven woodman argues that science disproves Creationism in post 33 and I think many would agree. There are different strains of Creationsim, but certainly if you consider the one positing that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it seems mutually exclusive with the Earth being 4.5 billion years old, carbon dating showing rocks which are millions of years old, a Cambrian explosion millions of years ago, etc. Similarly, evolution seems to directly contradict the story of Noah's Ark. They can't both be true, can they? So it seems to me that if you accept the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old, you can't believe in carbon dating or evolution, and vice versa.
There are also those who think that God created the universe and the Earth billions of years ago and set up the laws of physics and maybe even creates occasional Big Bangs. I can't see any contradiction there.
First, you are using the Judean-Christian form of belief to generalize the position of those that subscribe to Creation. When there's thousands of other religion beliefs which subscribe to the concept of Creation.
Second, and most disturbing. Do you know where that number of 6000 years came from?
Do a little investigation and you'll know that it was an ill attempt by some to explain what they didn't know, in an era when it was common for knowledgeable gentlemen to speculate about such things, filling in what could not be found in their Sacred Sources.
It sounded logical at that time and it continued until today, when many think that in order to believe in the Bible they need to adhere to such precepts.
Again VernonDozier, it is not my intention to offend you. Prove that you can take a comment by its face value.
And for those that are more than eager to jump to conclusions quickly, I would like to point that many, if not all of the sciences and disciplines which we rely on, today, so heavily, come from men and woman with a firm belief in God and they tried to prove what they thought as sacred. It is only, today, that a great abyss is preached between belief and science. Even in the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin was careful not to go beyond what he couldn't see. And someone can argue that the book is not even about The Origin of Species, which certainly doesn't say.
I recommend an easy reading book, titled: A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson; if you would like to learn more about how some of these men came to the knowledge that, we take for granted today.
Last edited by Aia; Nov 1st, 2008 at 2:00 pm.
"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it" - Ronald Reagan stating how a liberal's mind works.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,947
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 515
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Aia
VernonDozier, I am going to use you as a classic example of assumption and ignorance perpetuated by misconception passed down from generations to generations. Don't take it personal, because it is not towards you, it is that you just fit the model of many.
First, you are using the Judean-Christian form of belief to generalize the position of those that subscribe to Creation. When there's thousands of other religion beliefs which subscribe to the concept of Creation.
Second, and most disturbing. Do you know where that number of 6000 years came from?
Do a little investigation and you'll know that it was an ill attempt by some to explain what they didn't know, in an era when it was common for knowledgeable gentlemen to speculate about such things, filling in what could not be found in their Sacred Sources.
It sounded logical at that time and it continued until today, when many think that in order to believe in the Bible they need to adhere to such precepts.
Again VernonDozier, it is not my intention to offend you. Prove that you can take a comment by its face value.
And for those that are more than eager to jump to conclusions quickly, I would like to point that many, if not all of the sciences and disciplines which we rely on, today, so heavily, come from men and woman with a firm belief in God and they tried to prove what they thought as sacred. It is only, today, that a great abyss is preached between belief and science. Even in the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin was careful not to go beyond what he couldn't see. And someone can argue that the book is not even about The Origin of Species, which certainly doesn't say.
I recommend an easy reading book, titled: A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson; if you would like to learn more about how some of these men came to the knowledge that, we take for granted today.
•
•
•
•
There are different strains of Creationsim, but certainly if you consider the one positing that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it seems mutually exclusive with the Earth being 4.5 billion years old
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
I don't know what your point is or where you think my flawed thinking is. I never said there was only one form of Creationism. I picked a form of Creationism believed by millions. This strain seems completely incompatible with evolution and carbon dating to me. I don't see how they can both be true.
>No offense taken since I didn't say anything that was ignorant
Good that you didn't take offense. However you sure did post a series of question and arguments that have their roots in ignorance as I stated.
As I ask you, do you now how that main stream 6000 year concept came to be?
If you knew, this comment: " This strain seems completely incompatible with evolution and carbon dating to me. I don't see how they can both be true." would have never been formulated.
While I noticed that you mentioned: "There are different strains of Creationsim", as I read it the first time; the origin of all are the same Judea-Christian faith. Nevertheless, even so, you very quickly abandon the reference and go to mention another well known example: Noah's Ark.
>I don't know what your point is or where you think my flawed thinking is
Never said that your thinking was flawed, rather that by asking those questions and introducing those arguments as a base of irreconcilable contradictions, you are manifesting that common misconception stated in my previous post, that many do.
Good that you didn't take offense. However you sure did post a series of question and arguments that have their roots in ignorance as I stated.
As I ask you, do you now how that main stream 6000 year concept came to be?
If you knew, this comment: " This strain seems completely incompatible with evolution and carbon dating to me. I don't see how they can both be true." would have never been formulated.
While I noticed that you mentioned: "There are different strains of Creationsim", as I read it the first time; the origin of all are the same Judea-Christian faith. Nevertheless, even so, you very quickly abandon the reference and go to mention another well known example: Noah's Ark.
>I don't know what your point is or where you think my flawed thinking is
Never said that your thinking was flawed, rather that by asking those questions and introducing those arguments as a base of irreconcilable contradictions, you are manifesting that common misconception stated in my previous post, that many do.
Last edited by Aia; Nov 1st, 2008 at 3:57 pm.
"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it" - Ronald Reagan stating how a liberal's mind works.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,947
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 515
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Aia
>No offense taken since I didn't say anything that was ignorant
As I ask you, do you now how that main stream 6000 year concept came to be?
If you knew, this comment: " This strain seems completely incompatible with evolution and carbon dating to me. I don't see how they can both be true." would have never been formulated.
•
•
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 31
Posting Whiz in Training
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by VernonDozier
Gotta disagree with you on that one. steven woodman argues that science disproves Creationism in post 33 and I think many would agree.
However, if you read most serious published work on the topic, most scientists conclude that the creationism is based on a premise that cannot be subjected to a scientific test. Yes, they duck the question.
•
•
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,329
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 4
Oh don't tell me these types of threads are still going on. *sigh* I guess it never ends.
Btw: Creationism.
Btw: Creationism.
I am nothing special; of this I am sure. I am a common man with common thoughts, and I’ve led a common life. There are no monuments dedicated to me and my name will soon be forgotten, but I’ve loved another with all my heart and soul, and to me, this has always been enough. -The Notebook
•
•
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,243
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 146
Pope Benedict told a gathering of scientists including the British cosmologist Stephen Hawking on Friday that there was no contradiction between believing in God and empirical science.
Should you find Irony, you can keep her!
•
•
•
•
you can't believe in carbon dating or evolution
•
•
•
•
Pope Benedict told a gathering of scientists including the British cosmologist Stephen Hawking on Friday that there was no contradiction between believing in God and empirical science.
http://cdn.battlefieldheroes.com/signatures/229198472/1Player profile at BattlefieldHeroes.com, Free Shooter Game
|
Similar Threads
- Collins: Why this scientist believes in God (Geeks' Lounge)
- Evolution: Science vs. Religion (Geeks' Lounge)
Other Threads in the Geeks' Lounge Forum
- Previous Thread: Helpminutes left! from a desperate mom!
- Next Thread: Happy new Year to All
Views: 10145 | Replies: 136
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Latest Geeks' Lounge Posts
- Today's Posts
- Unanswered Threads
Related Forum Features
Tag cloud for Geeks' Lounge
ads art ascii bankrupt bankruptcy bear beard books change clocks closed code cognitive_disorder comedy convert cracked.com crackpot daniweb design disk dogs empty eye flaw fun future garbage gifts google happiness hunting idiocy india infection information internet java king knife larnyx life linux love lynx machine mad magic manly marketing mars medical medicalresearch microsoft moderator ms murder networking neuropathology odf operating origin outlook pain power processing programming python rabies republic research santa school security software source space subversion systems tech thing time tinfoil_hat unsolved unused username vapid virus viruses wakoopa walmart wave webpage windows windows>all windows_wins wolframalpha world www xmas zomg_conspiracy
